Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 3/25/2018, 6:32 AM

Neither. For me it’s 60fps.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

Red Prince wrote on 3/25/2018, 8:15 AM

I’m 24 fps whenever I can. And by 24 I mean 24, not 23.976.

He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know.
                    — Lao Tze in Tao Te Ching

Can you imagine the silence if everyone only said what he knows?
                    — Karel Čapek (The guy who gave us the word “robot” in R.U.R.)

Former users wrote on 3/25/2018, 8:21 AM

I would never shoot 24. I would shoot the highest framerate possible because I want the smoothest video possible. 24 studders to my eyes.

 

MH7 wrote on 3/25/2018, 9:32 AM

@dream | By making, do you mean filming or just putting something together in VEGAS Pro? If the former, my current Canon HF G10 video camera films in 1080p 25fps and 1080i/ 50 fps. I’ve shot most of my videos in 1080i/ 50 fps because that seems to yield the best results.

Last changed by MH7 on 3/25/2018, 10:24 AM, changed a total of 1 times.

Romans 10:9-10

Aussie VEGAS Pro 15 (Build 321) User

My Productivity Workstation

CPU: AMD R7 1700 | Mobo: Gigabyte AX370 G5 | RAM: Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) 16GB DDR4 | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD | WD 2TB HDD | GPU: Gigabyte RX 580 | OS: Windows 10

dream wrote on 3/25/2018, 9:45 AM

@MH7 final output render file .

i have seen most or even professional video editors shoots and render out 24 fps

@Former users most people don't care about smoothness, they think its un-natural (60fps)

even movies shoot 24 fps

Former users wrote on 3/25/2018, 11:51 AM

Movies originally shot at 24fps because it was determined that was the slowest framerate that you could shoot film and not have an obvious flicker. At that time the idea was to conserve film. Where do you see that "most" people don't care about smoothness? The eye sees very smooth. I think it is unnatural to have flicker.

Rainer wrote on 3/25/2018, 4:31 PM

A lot of wannabe filmmakers shoot 24fps under the impression it will look more "filmic". And it will, if reverse telecined and shown by a mechanical projector. Otherwise, it just looks like flickery 24fps video. Mechanically projected film works because it flashes each 35mm 24 fps frame onto the retina twice, with an equal amount of black. Video can't do that. You decide what looks best on the medium it's shown (for me, "PAL" country, it's usually 50fps).

EricLNZ wrote on 3/25/2018, 4:48 PM

A lot of wannabe filmmakers shoot 24fps under the impression it will look more "filmic". And it will, if reverse telecined and shown by a mechanical projector. Otherwise, it just looks like flickery 24fps video. Mechanically projected film works because it flashes each 35mm 24 fps frame onto the retina twice, with an equal amount of black. Video can't do that. You decide what looks best on the medium it's shown (for me, "PAL" country, it's usually 50fps).

That might explain why when we shot 8mm film at 16 fps and projected it with a three bladed shutter projector it looked smooth whereas digital at that rate would be terriibly jerky. I'm in PAL and shoot 50i on my Canon HFG10 as I find 25 fps uncomfortably jerky (no matter how I play with the shutter speed) when there's movement across the screen which is fast or close. What I find strange is that some consumer cameras only shoot 4K in 25p. If you want 50p you have to drop down to 1080.

Former users wrote on 3/25/2018, 4:49 PM

I was in Ireland and watched TV there and was surprised how much flicker I noticed at 25fps. I am sure you get used to it, but I almost got a headache. A lot of feature films are shot at high frame rates like 120fps, but then rendered down to 24 or whatever for delivery. I would like to have a 120fps camera.

fifonik wrote on 3/25/2018, 5:11 PM

60p only for my home videos (I'm in PAL region, however prefer 60p, not 50p).

I'm also do not like 25/30p as it is too jerky.

Camcorder: Panasonic X920

Desktop: MB: MSI B450M MORTAR TITANIUM, CPU: AMD Ryzen 3700X, RAM: G'Skill 16 GB DDR4@3200, Graphics card: MSI RX470 4GB, SSD (OS): Samsung 850 EVO SATA 250MB, HDDs: Seagate & Toshiba 2TB, OS: Windows 10 Pro 1909

NLE: Vegas Pro [Edit] 11, 12, 13, 15, 17

Nick Hope wrote on 3/26/2018, 3:00 AM

A lot of wannabe filmmakers shoot 24fps under the impression it will look more "filmic". And it will, if reverse telecined and shown by a mechanical projector. Otherwise, it just looks like flickery 24fps video. Mechanically projected film works because it flashes each 35mm 24 fps frame onto the retina twice, with an equal amount of black. Video can't do that. You decide what looks best on the medium it's shown (for me, "PAL" country, it's usually 50fps).

@Rainer Why twice? Are you saying the lamp switches on 48 times per second?

EricLNZ wrote on 3/26/2018, 4:31 AM

A lot of wannabe filmmakers shoot 24fps under the impression it will look more "filmic". And it will, if reverse telecined and shown by a mechanical projector. Otherwise, it just looks like flickery 24fps video. Mechanically projected film works because it flashes each 35mm 24 fps frame onto the retina twice, with an equal amount of black. Video can't do that. You decide what looks best on the medium it's shown (for me, "PAL" country, it's usually 50fps).

@Rainer Why twice? Are you saying the lamp switches on 48 times per second?


No, projectors have a two bladed shutter and consumer projectors like Eumig and Elmo have a three bladed shutter. It's done to avoid flicker.

So if you're projecting Super 8 at 18fps you actually see 54 images on the screen a second and it looks continuous with no flickering as you would at a slower speed. Although you are only seeing 18 different images a second (each one three times) movement on film looks smooth. It puzzles me how. It's just that film is different. Many years ago back in UK I shot a lot of cycle racing and it's all smooth.

Musicvid wrote on 3/26/2018, 7:43 PM

By "making" do you mean shoot or render?

Plan on rendering the same as you shoot, whatever that may be.

Nick Hope wrote on 3/27/2018, 12:55 AM

A lot of wannabe filmmakers shoot 24fps under the impression it will look more "filmic". And it will, if reverse telecined and shown by a mechanical projector. Otherwise, it just looks like flickery 24fps video. Mechanically projected film works because it flashes each 35mm 24 fps frame onto the retina twice, with an equal amount of black. Video can't do that. You decide what looks best on the medium it's shown (for me, "PAL" country, it's usually 50fps).

@Rainer Why twice? Are you saying the lamp switches on 48 times per second?


No, projectors have a two bladed shutter and consumer projectors like Eumig and Elmo have a three bladed shutter. It's done to avoid flicker.

So if you're projecting Super 8 at 18fps you actually see 54 images on the screen a second and it looks continuous with no flickering as you would at a slower speed. Although you are only seeing 18 different images a second (each one three times) movement on film looks smooth. It puzzles me how. It's just that film is different. Many years ago back in UK I shot a lot of cycle racing and it's all smooth.

So 24fps film behaviour could be simulated on video at 96fps, with frames shown in identical pairs, separated by black frames. Exposure would have to be increased to stop the result being dark, which would effectively reduce dynamic range.

Right?

(I wonder if anyone has tried it)

EricLNZ wrote on 3/27/2018, 2:06 AM

Not really Nick. The black wouldn't be a frame. With a projector it's just a flash between frames while the film is either pulled down or stays stationery. The black "time" forms part of the 1/48th of a second for a two bladed shutter projector.

Also with digital you probably need to take into account how the displaying screen or projector is redrawing each "frame" it displays. With CRT I know every other field was constantly being replaced but I'm unclear how LCD & plasma screens and digital projectors display.

Nick Hope wrote on 3/27/2018, 3:06 AM

Not really Nick. The black wouldn't be a frame. With a projector it's just a flash between frames while the film is either pulled down or stays stationery. The black "time" forms part of the 1/48th of a second for a two bladed shutter projector...

I was going by Rainer's "equal amount of black" statement, demonstrated in this gif, which means each black period would be equivalent to 1 frame at 96fps. http://www.graumanschinese.org/projection/simplex-e-7-single-shutter-animation-second.gif

Soniclight-2.0 wrote on 3/29/2018, 7:24 PM

@dream | By making, do you mean filming or just putting something together in VEGAS Pro? If the former, my current Canon HF G10 video camera films in 1080p 25fps and 1080i/ 50 fps. I’ve shot most of my videos in 1080i/ 50 fps because that seems to yield the best results.

@MH7 -- and to anyone here who would like to respond....

Intrigued by your statement at the end... "I’ve shot most of my videos in 1080i/ 50 fps because that seems to yield the best results." I live in the U.S., so my fps is 60p and 60i respectively. I fully understand the difference between how recording in interlaced vs. progressive differs.

Embarrassing perhaps, but since I'm a "very serious and pauper 'amateur/semi-pro'" even though I've been here by two usernames since 2006, the only camcorder I have is a dinosaur, (though good for its time) -- a Mini-DV tape Canon HV30 which shoots only interlaced - 60i.

Have had a couple of motor problems with it that I somehow wiggle-fixed, but can't trust it will last.
So if/when I can, I'd like to get something like a Canon HF G30.

A year ago I got a consumer Nikon 5500 DSLR, which does shoot in 1080p, but it has some definite limitations for my kind of shooting - no auto-focus for video and I don't do much still photography. I had bought is because it shot video in that format.

I've handled it for 2 hours total, so it's in mint, in-closet condition.
Even plug in the wall-socket battery charger with batt every month or so to keep it healthy.

I may try to trade it for a 60p similar condition camcorder such as the above mentioned Canon for their MSRP cost range are pretty close, because....

.... my particular style is very much in-Vegas post created (effects, color correction, etc.)
I tend to do ethereal, artsy stuff.

So my only (5 or so minutes total long test) shooting in 1080 60p has been with the Nikon 5500.

But I noticed that while shooting with it in progressive (and so none of the usual interlace "jaggies"), the raw footage from it seemed a wee bit blurred or just not as sharp as what I was used to with the HV30's 60i.

Oh, and also, I tend to shoot low-light situations so that may or may not be a factor. But it wasn't low-light grain, just... something a bit subtly muddier overall in terms of image sharpness.

Is this what you mean by "best results" by using 50i versus 50p? And/or am I imagining this slight blur/muddier with progressive frame shooting vs. interlaced?

The devil's-advocate other side of this is...

Wouldn't progressive yield overall better results due to full frames sequences instead of what interlaced does?

Yours and/or anyone else's experienced input would be appreciated.

~ PSK

EricLNZ wrote on 3/29/2018, 10:22 PM
Wouldn't progressive yield overall better results due to full frames sequences instead of what interlaced does?

I would expect so if you are comparing the same framerate. Most modern consumer video cameras shoot 4K nowadays and 1080 at 50p for top quality dropping down to 50i at some of their lower quality settings But older cameras like my Canon Legria (PAL territory) HFG10 only shoot 50i plus 25p. Of the two I find 50i preferable as whilst you may loose some quality with interlacing/deinterlacing it gives smooth movement which 25p doesn't. And yes I've tried lowering my shutter speed with 25p, but movement across the screen that is close or fast is jerky. One factor to consider is how you handle your interlaced material. Deinterlacing with interpolation is to me the only sensible option. Yet sadly I note the default for VMS is blend fields!! Newcomers might not realise this is not the best option.

Soniclight-2.0 wrote on 3/30/2018, 3:50 PM

@EricNZ - Thanks for response. I realize I'm going on a slight tangent with my prog vs. inter question due to that the OP is about 24 vs. 30fps, but my core question hasn't been fully answered in terms of what MH7 wrote that I included in my question:

Is this what you mean by "best results" by using 50i versus 50p? And/or am I imagining this slight blur/muddier with progressive frame shooting vs. interlaced? (Refer to my initial comment for more.)

Essentially it's about the pros-and-cons of each using same resolution and fps (i.e. 60p, 60i). Note.: I can't afford either a 4K camcorder or to upgrade to the newer Magix Vegas Pro that can handle 4K (I still use Sony VP10e).

Hopefully he and/or others (some of the long-time "Yoda-Editor" I've know here for years and from whom I have learned so much) will address this. I.e. @Musicvid, @Nick Hope, etc.

Thanks.

(P.S.: In my first comment, I described my particular style as "ethereal, artsy". As one can see, I'm not kidding. Here is more or less a random frame with video title added. A "salvage" of a low-quality, entry-level smartphone impromptu recording via what I state as my in-"post" work in Vegas.

First it was to add a bit of literal cover for the crappy quality, then had fun, and it actually came out pretty well, all things considered. The dance-moves seem to be inside of the rays; stars also move outward done in PI. Then added one of my own instrumental "ambient-ish" music compositions. And voilà, sneaky editing pulled off - lol.

Nick Hope wrote on 3/31/2018, 4:26 AM

Maybe @MH7 can clarify what he meant.

MH7 wrote on 3/31/2018, 6:36 AM

Maybe @MH7 can clarify what he meant.

Thanks mate, I will.

@Soniclight-2.0

Okay, going off what @EricLNZ said here...

But older cameras like my Canon Legria (PAL territory) HFG10 only shoot 50i plus 25p. Of the two I find 50i preferable as whilst you may loose some quality with interlacing/deinterlacing it gives smooth movement which 25p doesn't. And yes I've tried lowering my shutter speed with 25p, but movement across the screen that is close or fast is jerky.

I film in 50/1080i because of the above very similar reasons to Eric. I have the exact same version of the Canon HF G10. I would film in 1080/50p if the PAL version of the HF G10 had the option to do so. Unfortunately it’s only the US NTSC model which has the option to film in a nice and high FPS progressive format (1080/60p to be exact) as opposed to interlaced. Canon actually named the US version the Vixia HF G10 (NTSC) and the UK/Australian version the Legria HF G10 (PAL).

 

The recording options between the two is as follows:

Canon Vixia HF G10 (US | NTSC):

  • 1920 x 1080 in 24p/30p/60p/30i/60i

Canon Legria HF G10 (UK/AU | PAL)

  • 1920 x 1080 in 25p/25i/50i (if I recall correctly)

 

I don’t understand why Canon did that but it was kind of annoying to find out that I couldn’t actually film in 1080/50p. Nevertheless, I usually get around the interlaced filmed video by running it via Handbrake and apply the bob de-interlacing option because it actually, at least to my eyes anyway, makes my videos look almost like they were filmed progressively with next to no jagged edges caused by the other de-interlacing options.

__________________________________________________________________________

Just to add to my reply, before I bought my Canon Legria HF G10 I had a Sony SD Handycam. It filmed in either 16:9 widescreen or 4:3 at @ 720x576 interlaced. By today’s standards, and especially with watching on a 4K monitor, the video quality looks quite bad.

But just as that looks pretty bad by today’s standards, my Canon 1080i HD camera is starting to show its age as well. So with my next upgrade I’ll be going back to Sony with the Sony AX700 4K camera. I know that it only shoots in 4K at 25p for the UK/AU version but I found it to have better visual quality than Canon’s GX10 4K camera that films in 4K @ 50p and goes for a good AU$500 more here. So I see no point in paying more for lesser quality, even if it does film in 4K @ 50p.

Last changed by MH7 on 3/31/2018, 8:54 PM, changed a total of 16 times.

Romans 10:9-10

Aussie VEGAS Pro 15 (Build 321) User

My Productivity Workstation

CPU: AMD R7 1700 | Mobo: Gigabyte AX370 G5 | RAM: Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) 16GB DDR4 | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD | WD 2TB HDD | GPU: Gigabyte RX 580 | OS: Windows 10

Musicvid wrote on 3/31/2018, 11:01 AM

Well I just saw an animation on the forum constructed and delivered in 24p (to save time, no doubt), and I'm not sure if I favor film look "art" or smoother motion. For me, however, the answer lies somewhat above 24p.

https://vimeo.com/257044867

And yes, I've wasted my breath once again attempting to persuade that author to render compliant REC 709 levels 😛

Musicvid wrote on 3/31/2018, 11:03 AM

As for my daily Yoda mantra,

-- There is no such thing as Try.

There is only Do or Not Do.

Musicvid wrote on 3/31/2018, 11:12 AM

Oh, like most characters of the Spielberg/Lucas genre, Yoda may be spun off from a real personality; that of J. Krishnamurti, known as the "golfing guru" in the 1970s. Actual footage of his early lectures is a little hard to find on the internet, but once you do, you may conclude that the character similarities to Yoda border on the obvious.